Decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT...

Discussion about rifles in 300 AAC BLACKOUT (7.62x35mm), hosted by the creator of the cartridge.

Moderators: gds, bakerjw, renegade

pdx_blackout
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:54 pm

Decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT...

Post by pdx_blackout »

After going back and forth for weeks on end, I've finally decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT over the 300 Blackout. My goal was to build a lightweight cheap alternative to my heavy 6.5 Creedmore for hogs and deer out to 200 yards, and the more I researched the 300BLK, the more I realized that my use case was not what the 300BLK was designed to shine at: fast supersonic accurate hunting loads (although it certainly will with enough range time, and there's plenty of kill shots here to prove it). From powder choice to barrel twist rate to case length to the huge distance to the lands, the 300BLK is a pistol that's really designed to shine shooting supressed, but can shoot supersonic if asked to. The 7.62x40 WT on the other hand was designed to be an accurate supersonic hunting cartridge that can shoot subs if asked to. Making brass is no different, and it'll be nice to use rifle powder in a rifle (1680). I've learned a lot on this forum and I'm sure I will probably stick around given how similar the cartridges are.
User avatar
plant.one
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6823
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: Oakland County, MI

Re: Decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT...

Post by plant.one »

because nobody uses 1680 in the blackout :wink: :roll: :roll:
Reloading info shared is based on experiences w/ my guns. Be safe and work up your loads from published data. Web data may not be accurate/safe.
This disclaimer will self destruct in 10 seconds.
User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT...

Post by dellet »

pdx_blackout wrote:After going back and forth for weeks on end, I've finally decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT over the 300 Blackout. My goal was to build a lightweight cheap alternative to my heavy 6.5 Creedmore for hogs and deer out to 200 yards, and the more I researched the 300BLK, the more I realized that my use case was not what the 300BLK was designed to shine at: fast supersonic accurate hunting loads (although it certainly will with enough range time, and there's plenty of kill shots here to prove it). From powder choice to barrel twist rate to case length to the huge distance to the lands, the 300BLK is a pistol that's really designed to shine shooting supressed, but can shoot supersonic if asked to. The 7.62x40 WT on the other hand was designed to be an accurate supersonic hunting cartridge that can shoot subs if asked to. Making brass is no different, and it'll be nice to use rifle powder in a rifle (1680). I've learned a lot on this forum and I'm sure I will probably stick around given how similar the cartridges are.
Sadly you've bought into someone's koolaid stand.

The difference between the two cartridges is 10% max fps and to get that you need to be creative in your loading.

Everything else you brought up will only apply if you are shooting competitively. The argument of twist rate is beyond the ability of 90%, if not more, of the shooters using either cartridge to realize.

As far as being able to use a 1680, what you will find is that when it comes to lighter supers, the reason most people use pistol powders, in both cartridges is that they perform better. Just because a certain powder is listed for one and not the other cartridge is choice.

For what it's worth, I've shot 110 grain bullets over 2800 fps in a 1/6 barrel with MOA accuracy or better repeatedly. Some of my best groups with subs at 200 yards were with long heavy bullets from a 1/10 twist.

The upside of a 7.62X40 is about maybe 100 yards effective range, that's being generous. The downside is you will be handloading, there really is no choice. You will need a dedicated magazine.

Not saying it's a bad choice, if you want maximum speed. Just that unless you are currently shooting half MOA or better with every rifle you own and load for, you won't notice the difference between the two cartridges under 300 yards.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
User avatar
gds
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:43 am
Location: Sandhills of North Carolina

Re: Decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT...

Post by gds »

Nothing really wrong with choosing the 7.62 x 40 WT. However I will have to admit some of your reasoning is extremely flawed, don't get me wrong. You don't have to justify it to me at all. It is just some of your reasoning actually doesn't work.
Looking at the load data recommended by Wilson Tactical. The powders listed, are the exact same powders also listed for 300 Blackout. To include h110, which is considered a pistol powder. 300 Blackout uses 1680, as you said a rifle powder.

And to be completely Frank with you. I really don't understand why it's an issue that one may be using a pistol powder, or a rifle powder, as long as it works efficiently in whatever cartridge they're loading. I really do not understand why that's a problem? Nor do I understand why so many for some inexplicable reason consider that to be a negative. I mean seriously who cares if it's a rifle, a pistol, or a shotgun based powder. If it works? So what? I mean really, I use rifle, pistol powder, and shotgun powder, as well as Trail Boss, which is a powder used mainly in cowboy action shooting, in rifle and pistol. I use all these types of powders in different 300 black loadings, and for some reason I just don't consider it to be a negative. Actually I consider to be a positive. Sorry for that little rant, but again I really just don't get the point.

Also, you have a slight misunderstanding of the purpose of 300 Blackout. As far as its design parameters. It was not designed as a subsonic round that could also do supersonic, it was designed from the get-go as both.

Again don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with going with that caliber. It is simply that your stated reasoning, well frankly, it's off badly.
Yes, I am a Baptist, and yes I carry a gun. You might think I carry a gun because I don't trust God. Well you would be wrong. I have complete faith in my Lord. It is mankind I have no trust in
User avatar
plant.one
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6823
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: Oakland County, MI

Re: Decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT...

Post by plant.one »

gds wrote:
Again don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with going with that caliber. It is simply that your stated reasoning, well frankly, it's off badly.

nailed it.
Reloading info shared is based on experiences w/ my guns. Be safe and work up your loads from published data. Web data may not be accurate/safe.
This disclaimer will self destruct in 10 seconds.
User avatar
gds
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3711
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:43 am
Location: Sandhills of North Carolina

Re: Decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT...

Post by gds »

I don't mean to keep harping on the whole powder issue, but I'm going to anyways. Is there some kind of thing that makes one's manhood be questioned if he uses a pistol powder in a rifle cartridge?

Conversation

300blk guy: I love my 300 blk, but I am afraid to tell people.

Friend of 300blk guy: Why, what is the problem?

300blk guy: Well, I did not want to say. But some of the powders I use to load it and get efficient results are, well... They are pistol powders....

Friend of 300blk guy: Turn in your man card you beta male, sissified chicken.

300blk guy: But, why should it matter? H110 is really efficient in supersonic loadings.

Friend of 300blk guy: But it is a pistol powder, next thing you will be doing is eating escargot, and voting for communist. You need to reload. With rifle powders, traitor.

300blk guy: But I also use some shotgun powders for subs in my bolt action. Makes them really quiet.

Friend of 300blk guy: SACRILEGE, TRAITOROUS, COMMUNIST SCUM, GO LIVE IN EUROPE YOU COWARD, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO YOU ARE ANYMORE.
Yes, I am a Baptist, and yes I carry a gun. You might think I carry a gun because I don't trust God. Well you would be wrong. I have complete faith in my Lord. It is mankind I have no trust in
pdx_blackout
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:54 pm

Re: Decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT...

Post by pdx_blackout »

Appreciate the replies guys (except for the disrespectful "you drank someone's koolaid" comment, which was flawed).

Ok I'll give you the powder reasoning was off, but all of the others are still valid. My only purpose for this gun is to push 110-125 grain pills out as fast as I can at a deer, hog, or target. Yes the 300 BLK can do it, but it's held back by its case length and throat length, and it doesn't really maximize the AR-15's ability to push a 30 cal bullet like the WT does. You can't seat to mag length with most 110-125 pills, and even if you could the jump to the lands is huge. Even if you assume the 300 BLK was designed as a multi-purpose cartridge, that still leaves some on the table for fast/light hunting loads, which is where the WT excels. The limited ammo availability is really a non-issue and no different than if I were to choose the 300 BLK... I was always planning on forming brass from my many once-fired 223 cases. Why not pick the round that excels and was designed around my ideal use-case?

Also, for whoever said you need dedicated mags, that is just false. Modified M2 PMAGs work just fine.
User avatar
dellet
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6967
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT...

Post by dellet »

pdx_blackout wrote:Appreciate the replies guys (except for the disrespectful "you drank someone's koolaid" comment, which was flawed).

Ok I'll give you the powder reasoning was off, but all of the others are still valid. My only purpose for this gun is to push 110-125 grain pills out as fast as I can at a deer, hog, or target. Yes the 300 BLK can do it, but it's held back by its case length and throat length, and it doesn't really maximize the AR-15's ability to push a 30 cal bullet like the WT does. You can't seat to mag length with most 110-125 pills, and even if you could the jump to the lands is huge. Even if you assume the 300 BLK was designed as a multi-purpose cartridge, that still leaves some on the table for fast/light hunting loads, which is where the WT excels. The limited ammo availability is really a non-issue and no different than if I were to choose the 300 BLK... I was always planning on forming brass from my many once-fired 223 cases. Why not pick the round that excels and was designed around my ideal use-case?

Also, for whoever said you need dedicated mags, that is just false. Modified M2 PMAGs work just fine.
I"m the one who said you needed a dedicated mag, and also the one who said you drank the koolaid.

Since it won't work without a "modified" magazine, it is therefore dedicated. It does not work with a standard magazine, nor was it designed to. That's why Wilson has always sold modified or dedicated magazines.

You made a choice for maximum velocity and it was the correct choice for that reason. The rest is all hype and you bought into it. Again you're choice.

The fact of the matter is that 95% of any bullet you choose, maximum OAL will be determined by magazine length and nothing else. Your gain is the slight powder capacity difference of the cases.

Accuracy and a long throat is not mutually exclusive, Ask anyone who shoots a Weatherby or Bergers loaded .150" off the lands.

I don't really care what you do, or if you think telling you that you bought hype and not facts is disrespectful. Just don't come on a board dedicated to something you chose not to buy, spread a load of crap and not expect to be called on it.
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
pdx_blackout
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:54 pm

Re: Decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT...

Post by pdx_blackout »

dellet wrote:
pdx_blackout wrote:Appreciate the replies guys (except for the disrespectful "you drank someone's koolaid" comment, which was flawed).

Ok I'll give you the powder reasoning was off, but all of the others are still valid. My only purpose for this gun is to push 110-125 grain pills out as fast as I can at a deer, hog, or target. Yes the 300 BLK can do it, but it's held back by its case length and throat length, and it doesn't really maximize the AR-15's ability to push a 30 cal bullet like the WT does. You can't seat to mag length with most 110-125 pills, and even if you could the jump to the lands is huge. Even if you assume the 300 BLK was designed as a multi-purpose cartridge, that still leaves some on the table for fast/light hunting loads, which is where the WT excels. The limited ammo availability is really a non-issue and no different than if I were to choose the 300 BLK... I was always planning on forming brass from my many once-fired 223 cases. Why not pick the round that excels and was designed around my ideal use-case?

Also, for whoever said you need dedicated mags, that is just false. Modified M2 PMAGs work just fine.
I"m the one who said you needed a dedicated mag, and also the one who said you drank the koolaid.

Since it won't work without a "modified" magazine, it is therefore dedicated. It does not work with a standard magazine, nor was it designed to. That's why Wilson has always sold modified or dedicated magazines.

You made a choice for maximum velocity and it was the correct choice for that reason. The rest is all hype and you bought into it. Again you're choice.

The fact of the matter is that 95% of any bullet you choose, maximum OAL will be determined by magazine length and nothing else. Your gain is the slight powder capacity difference of the cases.

Accuracy and a long throat is not mutually exclusive, Ask anyone who shoots a Weatherby or Bergers loaded .150" off the lands.

I don't really care what you do, or if you think telling you that you bought hype and not facts is disrespectful. Just don't come on a board dedicated to something you chose not to buy, spread a load of crap and not expect to be called on it.
I think you’re taking my decision a bit personally. And the reasons I listed were not a “load of crap.” It’s the better cartridge for the job. And FWIW, I’d have to modify the mags for 300 BLK anyways (yes I tested it and even over-the-counter BLK ammo was getting hung up on the rib). I’m building a dedicated rifle so I chose the dedicated rifle cartridge. Simple as that.
NeVs24
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:44 am

Re: Decided to go with the 7.62x40 WT...

Post by NeVs24 »

pdx_blackout wrote:I think you’re taking my decision a bit personally. And the reasons I listed were not a “load of crap.” It’s the better cartridge for the job. And FWIW, I’d have to modify the mags for 300 BLK anyways (yes I tested it and even over-the-counter BLK ammo was getting hung up on the rib). I’m building a dedicated rifle so I chose the dedicated rifle cartridge. Simple as that.
I'm pretty sure the failures to feed are a result of 2 different issues.
- the large subsonic rounds sitting wide and putting pressure on the sides of the mag
- hand loads being loaded to max coal.

I've shot about 800 rounds of 15 different types of factory bullets all 110-125 grain and have never had a failure to feed.

Maybe the issue is your mag and not the ammo?

Also, how is your failure to feed occurring? It could even be a gas adjustment issue
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 155 guests